Re-classification Of Cannabis

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, but this does *not* mean there's a logical connection between the usage of cannabis and harder drugs.

The dealer is only interested in keeping their market going and getting a bigger profit, so it's in their interest to push harder/ more addictive drugs.

However were cannabis to be decriminalised and available as in Holland *AND* that hard drug usage be treated as a *medical* rather than a *criminal* matter with detox programmes available to hard drug users, also as in Holland, I think the number of people who subsequently get hooked on hard drugs would drop.

Yes, just taking canibis doesn't mean you will wake up one day and think "oo I think I'll try some crack", it is the dealers of the canibis and the mixing with people who use canibis and other drugs that leads to the progression onto harder things.

Holland's drug use experiment went seriously wrong though in that park didn't it?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Class A drugs still enable to you escape from the world.
They still get you high.
It's only if you take too much that they kill.
Isn't that the same as drink?

Drink does not get most people "high" (or drunk) with one dose. Drugs can do.
While both kill, A person taking one pill (in their life) of certain drugs can die (particularly Ecstacy). Drink usually takes more than one to do that (apparently Absynthe is strong enough to kill though, but that is banned).

Drugs (even if used correctly) can trigger mental illness. For instance, Cannabis can trigger Schizophrenia if used to excess or mixed with other chemicals. I know someone who will the rest of his life on medication because he smoked a joint and it triggered Schizophrenia.

Isn't part of the problem with the gov bringing in a law banning tobacco, that they get plenty of funds from taxing it, but more so, it would be political suicide?
Tobacco was introduced before it's harm was known, as such people have grown up thinking it isn't that bad. I know several people who run risks of strokes, or have lost limbs due to smoking, but still keep doing it. Like opium it was considered a taxable comodoty, heck we even went to war to keep the opium flowing, but people eventually realised the harm and dangers of it, and so it was banned, but unlike tobacco, there were fewer users of opium, so much less of a backlash.

I think, if they were discovered today, Alcohol and Tobacco would treated as drugs and banned, but as you say, the government gets too much money in tax.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Holland's drug use experiment went seriously wrong though in that park didn't it?

Que?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Que?

They came up with a fantastic idea which on paper looked good, but neglected to take into account what people are like when they've just injected heroine into their viens.

I don't think it was Amsterdam, but one of the other dams, they declared a park a drug decriminalised zone, giving out free needles, and supplying biohazard waste buckets for used ones, and giving advice on how to get off the stuff if people wanted to.

The idea was, drug users could go to the park, get safe needles, and be good citizens and put the used needles in the buckets, and generally just lie about chilling.

If memory serves, and this was several years ago, they were going to try it for 3 months and if successful roll it out across the country.

What happened?
Well your average heroine user doesn't give a flying watsit as to what happens to the needle once they're high.
So the park was flooded with used needles.
This was a park that kids would play in during the day.
The area became a magnet for drug users, and it all got out of control.
People still took overdoses, so they had bodies to clear up along with the drug waste.


On a different note, how do you test someone at the side of the road if you suspect they've been driving while under the influence of drugs?
If you get pulled over for wandering all over the road (dodging the manhole covers going up the A3 through cosham), and the PC suspects you have been drinking, he can just breathalise you, see that your story about the manhole covers is correct, and see that you haven't been drinking alcohol and send you on your way.
But lets say someone gets pulled over for wandering all over the road. There's no manhole covers, but the diver has been smoking canabis.
He's breathalised, it shows clear, and maybe he's able to convince the PC he's ok, so drives off as a danger.
The PC could take the driver down to the police station for a blood test, but lets say the driver hasn't been smoking pot, how would the driver feel about having his time wasted like that?
You have the current problem of people drinking just below the limit, then smoking pot to feel more drunk. The police have no way of checking if that person is too intoxicated to drive, as the breathaliser will say they are ok.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

They came up with a fantastic idea which on paper looked good, but neglected to take into account what people are like when they've just injected heroine into their viens.

I don't think it was Amsterdam, but one of the other dams, they declared a park a drug decriminalised zone, giving out free needles, and supplying biohazard waste buckets for used ones, and giving advice on how to get off the stuff if people wanted to.

The idea was, drug users could go to the park, get safe needles, and be good citizens and put the used needles in the buckets, and generally just lie about chilling.

If memory serves, and this was several years ago, they were going to try it for 3 months and if successful roll it out across the country.

What happened?
Well your average heroine user doesn't give a flying watsit as to what happens to the needle once they're high.
So the park was flooded with used needles.
This was a park that kids would play in during the day.
The area became a magnet for drug users, and it all got out of control.
People still took overdoses, so they had bodies to clear up along with the drug waste.

I thought that park was in Switzerland, or Austria (not sure which one). By all accounts, the experiment failed big time.

Originally Posted by scastle

Drink does not get most people "high" (or drunk) with one dose. Drugs can do. While both kill, A person taking one pill (in their life) of certain drugs can die (particularly Ecstacy). Drink usually takes more than one to do that (apparently Absynthe is strong enough to kill though, but that is banned).

Absynthe isn`t banned in the UK. One peanut can kill, one bee sting can kill. Should we ban peanuts and bees? Are you aware that the leading piece of research into the lethality of MDMA has now been revealed to have been totally flawed, and the results no longer indicative of the danger levels of E?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

On a different note, how do you test someone at the side of the road if you suspect they've been driving while under the influence of drugs?

There is currently a device undergoing trial for that very purpose. It's a PocketPC loaded with a variety of cognitive tests, and by analysing the difference in performance across a range of tests the aim is to be able to identify if the user has been taking any drugs, and what sort of drugs they are.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

There is currently a device undergoing trial for that very purpose. It's a PocketPC loaded with a variety of cognitive tests, and by analysing the difference in performance across a range of tests the aim is to be able to identify if the user has been taking any drugs, and what sort of drugs they are.

Interesting, a high tech version of 'walk in a straight line' & 'touch your nose with your eyes closed'.

I imagine that such methods would be essential if the assessment of Cannabis 'intoxication' was to be made on drivers. The problem at the moment is that Cannabis persists in the bloodstream long after the effects have worn off, so blood testing is impractical.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Absynthe isn`t banned in the UK.

...but adding wormwood to absinthe is. The absinthe we get these days is a pale imitation of the (banned) original.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

...but adding wormwood to absinthe is. The absinthe we get these days is a pale imitation of the (banned) original.

Not strictly true, there are regulations but they only stipulate the amount of thujone that can be present in the absinthe. But since the bottles never state the amount of thujone that isn`t normally a hard problem for suppliers to tackle. I've seen plenty of companies based in the UK selling absinthe with thujone in it that is at a higher level than is permitted. I suspect that this is because thujone is still not regulated as a drug, it is regulated as a toxic substance so comes under a whole different raft of legislation.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Not strictly true, there are regulations but they only stipulate the amount of thujone that can be present in the absinthe. But since the bottles never state the amount of thujone that isn`t normally a hard problem for suppliers to tackle. I've seen plenty of companies based in the UK selling absinthe with thujone in it that is at a higher level than is permitted. I suspect that this is because thujone is still not regulated as a drug, it is regulated as a toxic substance so comes under a whole different raft of legislation.

I stand corrected....learn something new everyday

Just for a laugh, why not try the quiz on the new legislation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3423525.stm

- I got only 7 right

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by homealone

Just for a laugh, why not try the quiz on the new legislation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3423525.stm

- I got only 7 right

9 here.

Missed the arrest not being "normal" for adults caught in possession, as it will now require some aggravating factor before that is "supposed" happen.

This I suspect will be the main problem of the new guidelines as it will depend largely on how it is applied in each police area.

mmmm Wonders, will a failure to share the J with the officer in question be seen as aggravating him?

Originally Posted by Sociable

9 here.

Missed the arrest not being "normal" for adults caught in possession, as it will now require some aggravating factor before that is "supposed" happen.

This I suspect will be the main problem of the new guidelines as it will depend largely on how it is applied in each police area.

mmmm Wonders, will a failure to share the J with the officer in question be seen as aggravating him?

lol @ sharing

- & I agree about the potential for variation in application in different areas. It was interesting the quiz said 'teenagers' would be still subject to arrest, I presume they meant under 18's.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Absynthe isn`t banned in the UK. One peanut can kill, one bee sting can kill. Should we ban peanuts and bees? Are you aware that the leading piece of research into the lethality of MDMA has now been revealed to have been totally flawed, and the results no longer indicative of the danger levels of E?

Actually, I am not advocating banning drink (lethal or not). The fact is that drugs (I gave E as an example purely because that has hit the headlines in the past) CAN kill with one pill. Unless you drink something poisonous, drink generally will not kill you with one glass.

As regards to my position on legalising cannabis is that I think it should be. While I do know one person who has Schizophrenia that was triggered by a joint, I know people who use cannabis regularly. I also know one or two who have found it to be a particularly effective Pain Killer, with fewer side effects than many commercial pain killers (Paracetamol being the worst).